them. The debate thenceforth became nothing more than a contest between the ministers and the oppositionists, in which the political points at issue between them were recapitulated; but although several of the principal speakers took their share in it, there can be no advantage in occupying more of our pages with topics to which so much space has already been devoted. The house at length came to a division, in which there appeared for the motion 136, against it 209, majority 73.

The subject of the Orders in Council, which constituted so important a part of the negociations between this country and the United States of America during the last year, appears prominent in the parliamentary discussions of the present year; and although their importance has unfortunately been diminished by the event-for the Americans decided the question by arms, whilst our senates were debating it they cannot be passed over in a relation of the principal occurrences in parliamentary history.

The House of Lords having been summoned on February 28, in consequence of a motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the order of the day being read, the marquis rose to call the attention of their lordships to the Orders in Council, and to the system of policy which had resulted from those orders, so injurious to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country, and to the welfare of the state. He specified the particular orders which he meant to consider, to be those issued in November 1807, prohibiting the

trade to France and the countries dependent upon her, at the same time insisting on American vessels coming first to our ports and paying a tax there; and also to the order of April 1809, partly revoking the former orders, by opening the trade with the north of Europe. He then took a view of the effects of these orders as to their operation on the enemy; their operation on the neutral; their influence on the commerce and internal resources of this country; and their effects on its maritime policy. Under these heads he made a number of observations which are incapable of abridgment, as they all referred to particular facts. One striking remark of a general nature we shall however transcribe. If (said the noble speaker) at the time of the revolution in America, any one could have foreseen that the whole commerce of continental Europe would have fallen under the iron grasp and dominion of France, they would have looked to the establishment of an independent state on the other side of the Atlantic, out of the reach of French power, to become the carrier of our commerce, and purchaser of our manufactures, as the greatest boon that could have been given us. Such an event had occurred as if providentially; yet this great and inestimable advantage had been destroyed by the Orders in Council. His lordship then adverted to the abuses of the system of licences, the number of which had increased from 4000 to 16,000 in the year; and to the system of simulation and dissimulation by which our commerce was now carried on, and which had thrown discredit on

the

House of Lords.

On the division there appeared, for Mr. Brougham's motion 144, against it 216; majority 72.

The bill which had been carried respecting offices in reversion, though laudable in its principle, was evidently incapable of doing much towards the relief of the national burdens; its author, therefore, Mr. Bankes, with a view of striking a more effectual blow against the waste of public money, rose in the House of Commons on March 24, and moved the reading of the three first resolutions of the committee relative to public expenditure in May 1810. Their substance was to recommend the abolition of all offices which have revenue without employment, and the regulation of those which have revenue extremely disproportinate to employment (with the exception of those about the person of his Majesty and the royal family), and to reduce all effective offices, the duties of which are discharged by deputy, to the salary and emoluments actually received for executing the business of those offices. These resolutions being read, the honourable member said, that there was nothing to which the country looked with more pleasure than to the salutary principles of regulation which ought to be applied to sinecure offices. He guarded, however, against the indulgence of too high expectations of relief from the burdens incurred during war from such a measure, or, indeed, of any immediate economical effect of the motion he meant to propose; but if the principle were once established, it could not fail of a sure though

slow effect. After some further observations, he concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for abolishing and regulating sinecures and offices executed by deputy, and for providing other means for recompensing the faithful discharge of high or effective civil offices, and for other economical purposes."

Leave was accordingly given; and Mr. Bankes, Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. I. W. Ward, were ordered to prepare the same.

The bill thus framed did not come to a discussion till May 4, when, upon the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the bill, Mr. W. Dundas rose, and objected to it as violating the articles of union with Scotland. He said, that the people of Scotland had stipulated at the union that their chief offices of state should be preserved, and he asked upon what ground it was that the very first offices of that country, in defiance of solemn treaty and national faith, were to be abolished?

The Lord Advocate of Scotland followed on the same side. He instanced particularly as an infringement of a stipulated right, the abolition of the office of keeper of the great seal of Scotland. The fact being denied by Mr. Bankes, he said the bill abolished the emolument of the office; and what remained of the office after the emolument? This was what induced responsible persons to undertake it; and the want of responsibility was what he attributed to the enactments of this bill. It gave up a place of high trust to obscure individuals who should act as-de

puties,

puties, and by it the property of Scotland was therefore put into unsafe hands. He made other objections to the bill; and said, that if it should pass into a law, it would cause the greatest confusion in Scotland, and strike the whole people with immeasurable astonish

ment.

Mr. Lyttelton made some sarcastic observations on the attachment to emolument avowed by the last speaker, and said that he was fully convinced that the true reason why the influence of the aristocracy was so debased, was, because these places bad been continued. He gave his opinion that there was never a fitter time for wresting this power of augmenting influence from the hands of the crown, when it was known that there prevailed in the court a base system of unprincipled favouritism-when it was notorious that the Regent was surrounded and hemmed in with minions, among whom, if there was a man of note or talent, there certainly was not one of any character.

Mr. Courtenay attempted to shew that the proposed bill, instead of being a measure of economy, 'would be one of profuseness, and would tend to increase the improper influence of the crown. He objected to the whole principle upon which the pensions, which were to be substituted to the sinecures, were grounded. Under the bill, they would be given to those who ought not to have them, and withholden from those on whom they ought to be conferred. There would be no other test of merit in bestowing rewards, than having possessed a place. He observed,

also, that it was contrary to all parliamentary practice to interfere with offices appertaining to the hereditary revenue of the crown, without the consent of the crown previously signified.

Lord Á. Hamilton urged in support of the bill, the disappointment which would be felt by the people at large, if, after the expectations held out to them, some measure of the kind were not adopted.

Mr. Bastard took the same ground, and dwelt upon the grievous burdens under which almost all classes were now suffering. He could have wished that every separate office had been put to the vote, and a bill prepared conformably to that decision. It was at least incumbent on those who talked of the necessity of remuneration, to shew the reality of the service. He was convinced it would be difficult to point out ten in the whole list that partook of this character. The public money was too often given, rather as a consideration for accepting office, than for the services performed in it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he felt himself bound to state his objections to the bill, both in its details and principle. In considering the former, he mentioned several instances in which its provisions were either inconsistent or unjust. With respect to the principle, his opinion still was that it was perfectly wrong and mistaken. It went to say that the crown should not have the power of securing for its service men whom it might judge to be the most capable, if they happened not to be in a situation to resign all other pursuits in order to enter

into the public service. He put this case strongly, and not without a personal allusion. He then adverted to the influence of the crown, and appealed to the house whether it was too great; referring to the division upon Colonel M'Mahon's appointment: and desired them to consider whether the bill would not tend to a diminution of infinence hazardous to the monarchy.

Mr. Bankes thought it somewhat extraordinary, and contrary to parliamentary usage, to suffer the bill to be read a second time, and pass the committee, without observations, and then come forward in this stage to condemn not only its principle,, but those details which might have been altered in the committee. He then made replies to some of the particular objections which had been advanced; and desired that when the offices proposed to be abolished, and their responsibility were spoken of, it should be recollected that they were rather quasi offices with quasi responsibility, neither of which appeared to him too great to be confined to such men as would usually be appointed deputies. As to the power of the crown, he said it was impossible to look at the immense expenditure of the country, with all the establishments and patronage connected with it, without being convinced that dependence on the crown was extended to all parts to a degree quite unexampled in former times. It was also no light consideration that some of the greatest commercial and corporate bodies were in the habit of looking up to the ministers of the crown.

Mr. Canning made one of those balanced, indecisive speeches which had lately distinguished his manner of debate, but declared that he should support the bill, because he approved its principle.

That the general sense of the house was decidedly in its favour, was proved by the division, on which the numbers were,-for the motion 134, against it 123, majority 11.

The bill was then recommitted, when various amendments were proposed, some of which were carried, and others rejected. The report was then received, and the bill was ordered for a third reading. This took place on June 15th, when various objections were started against the bill, which, however was read without a division. Mr. Bankes then moved the additional clause, "Provided always, that nothing in this bill should be prejudicial to the rights and interests of those who are now chief justices;" which was agreed to. Various clauses of amendment were then put, most of which were rejected. A motion for omitting that clause in the bill which limited the pension list of Ireland to 40,000l. a year produced a division, for the motion 59, against it 60. The bill afterwards passed the house without further opposition.

The bill did not arrive to its second reading in the House of Lords till July 3. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor spoke of its provisions with great contempt, and said that such a bill never met the eye of a lawyer ever since the establishment of law. He pointed out some of its most objectionable parts, and concluded with the mo